A multi-stakeholder workshop on Responsible Tourism and Human Rights in Myanmar was held in Naypyidaw from 30 September to 2 October by the Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business and the Hanns Seidel Foundation.

1. www.mcrb.org.mm
အမွတ္ ၁၅၊ ရွမ္းရိပ္သာလမ္း
(ဆာကူရာ ေဆးရံုအနီး)
စမ္းေခ်ာင္းၿမိဳ႔နယ္၊ ရန္ကုန္ၿမိဳ႕
ဖုန္း / ဖက္(စ္) ၀၁ ၅၁၀၀၆၉
Wai Phyo Myint,
Regional Outreach Manager, Myanmar Centre for Responsible
Business (MCRB)

2.  Hotel Zones in Myanmar
 Clarifying terms “Zone” and “Zoning”
 Problems with “Hotel Zones” in Myanmar
 Summary of recent MCRB research on
hotel zones

3.  Started emerging in 2012
 Hotel zones established in all 14 regions
of the country with 2 zones in
Ayeyarwady Region and 4 more zones
planned for 2015. (According to Chairman of MTF
told the Myanmar Times in January 2015)
 Our research/media reports show
◦ Bagan: 5 Zones
◦ Naypyidaw: 3 Zones
◦ Inle: 1 Zone
◦ TadaOo (‘Mandalay’): 1 Zone
 Media reports mention plans to establish
zones near Golden Rock, and in Myeik
Archipelago, and elsewhere
 No information on Ministry
website/from government sources
 Unclear status in law, policy or
practice

4.  Vocabulary Confusion
 Some organisations like
Myanmar Hotelier Association
are using ‘Zone’ instead of
‘Destination’ which others use
 Confusion between ‘Zone’
and ‘Zoning’
◦ Zoning: a legal process to
demarcate what may/may not
be done in an area. Essential
to protect culture and the
environment

5.  The Myanmar practice of ‘Hotel Zones’ is:
◦ taking land from other uses – e.g farming
◦ defining where only hotels must be built
◦ not connected to the market
 This is problematic because:
◦ It has negative impacts on local livelihoods: land grabs,
loss of farmland/land rights, land speculation
◦ Lack of community participation in decision making; no
grievance mechanisms and government officials involved
in negotiations on behalf of companies
◦ “Exclusive”: Reduces opportunities for community
involvement in tourism (small guesthouses, B&B),
◦ Environmental impacts
◦ Transparency (who receives the land?)
◦ Tourists do not want to stay in ‘ghettos’

6. Inle, Mandalay/Tada-Oo, Bagan
(March and August 2015)

7. Key Objective 3.3: Improve Zoning in Tourism Destinations pg. 48
Activity 3.3.1 Review the status of hotel zone development (e.g.,
Mandalay, Bagan, and Inle): review progress and issues with hotel
zone development within context of Myanmar’s responsible
tourism policy; develop a planning framework that harmonizes
hotel zone planning with national objectives to protect natural
and cultural heritage and promote the well-being of local
residents.
A reminder:
Tourism Master Plan, 2013

8.  Currently ~40 hotels near Inle Lake, 1000
rooms, peak occupancy >90%
 Hotel Zone: 620 acres near Ingyin Kone. MoHT
30 year lease from the government. Villages
affected include Kanbe, Chaungpar,
Thaphaykone, Phayarphyu, Watthakin and
Nyaunswun.
 Zone development by Shan State Government
 Road construction by Phyu Zin Group (no open
tender) which owns three hotels in Shan State

9. • Each subdivided block on the
map is a hotel site
• No evidence of sewerage,
waste disposal, water
management etc in the
‘Master Plan’
• No published EIA or
Environmental Management
Plan
• Problems over classification
of land - Forestry Land being
used by farmers, and now by
the Zone

10.  Mixed views about HZ
heard from locals:
◦ hope for jobs
◦ disputes over
compensation
◦ anger over lack of
transparency and
benefits for well-
connected companies
◦ Environmental and
livelihoods impacts
 Negative Reaction
from tourists and
international
investors
◦ Environment and visual
amenity

11.  Inadequate ‘impact assessment’ on the zone.
No public and genuine community
consultation took place
 Water shortage (caused by deforestation)
already affecting villagers (wells drying up).
Likely to impact hotel zone viability
 Hotel zone has further removed forest cover,
and impacted firewood collection
 Hotel zone wants to dam Nant Li creek used
by villages for hydro and agriculture
 Conflict and arrests relating to compensation
disputes
 Township administrators act as mediators to
broker land acquisition for the hotel zone
 Lack of trust following arbitrary arrests of
farmers who refused to sell their land or
protested; failure to supply promised access
to water and electricity

12.  Field interviews with affected villages showed:
◦ Dissatisfaction with the processes, particularly land acquisition
and compensation for agricultural land and crops.
◦ In some cases compensation not paid for land, only crops,
because forest land
◦ Claims that not fully compensated for crops such as bamboo,
banana and coconut trees, lack of compensation for firewood in
many cases
◦ Compensation insufficient for continuation of agricultural
livelihood. Villagers made reliant on tourism related employment
◦ Company in some cases topped up compensation
◦ Resentment that farmers received e.g. 3 million kyats per acre for
groundnut/sesame; yet hotel investors are paying the
Development Company 150 million kyats per acre in Zone A, 120
million kyats Zone B, 90 million kyats per acre Zone C.

15.  Located 14 miles south west of
Mandalay next to Tada-Oo City.
West of ancient city of Inwa
(Ava) .The area slated for the
hotel zone includes several
villages, including Gatoeseik,
Thinpan, Gaungkwe,
Letsaungyou, Kyeebin and
Ngaryarpyar.
 Myanmar Tourism Development
Company, (Chair U Yan Win, A1
company and Chair of Myanmar
Tourism Federation); Zone chair
is U Myint Aung.
 Early plans for 5422-acre
(2012) seem to have been
halved to about 2180 acres;
original mention of 192 hotels –
now 20 according to media
reports
 When announced in 2012, total
cost estimated at about US$560
million. Public company has
sold shares; so far raised about
K50 billion (U$48.5 million).

16.  Issues raised by local communities are similar to Inle
Lake hotel zone:
◦ Local leaders and brokers have been appointed to
members of Hotel Zone Development Committees,
convincing local farmers to sell their land while
collecting commission fees of 0.3 million kyats per
acre sold.
◦ Different prices offered to local farmers from
initially 3 million kyat per acre up to 10 million
kyats; created resentment amongst early sellers.
◦ Farmers with fertile land less willing to sell
◦ Farmers don’t receive enough to buy cultivable
land elsewhere
◦ Protests and complaints have been met with police
harassment
◦ Farmers felt forced to sell at low prices, fearing
confiscation of the land.
 Again, mixed views: some distrust the project, some
believe it will bring employment, electricity,
infrastructure and reliable water supply.
 No public EIA conducted
 Promises made by MTDC to employ locals on a range
of construction-related projects including carpentry,
stonemasonry and even as golf caddies or
landscaping gardeners.
 Local CSOs feel MTDC has no plan to ensure local
communities benefit.
 Being a long way from any tourist destination and the
airport, it is questionable whether the zone will
attract any investment in the foreseeable future.
Farmers may have sold their land and livelihoods into
hands of speculators, and not see jobs materialise

17.  Currently 2500 rooms in Bagan, occupancy high (80-100% high
season).
 ‘Hotel Zones’ are different in Bagan compared to Inle and Tada Oo;
consequence of the market, not central planning (and cultural
heritage protection rules not enforced)
 Locals generally refer to
 Three ‘ Zones’ located in or near the archaeological zone of Old
Bagan. Hotels constructed over several decades
 A new Zone 4 located 10 km south of New Bagan, away from cultural
heritage areas.
 A ‘Zone 5’ was mentioned by President Thein Sein in 2014, said to be
close to the Nyaung Oo Airport and the Tuyin Taung Pagoda.
 Unclear status and lack of information

18.  Main concerns of local tourism stakeholders:
◦ Lack of consultation, information or transparency concerning
who (if anyone) receives permits to expand existing hotels
projects inside protected areas or develop of new tourism
projects
◦ Perception of uneven playing field: Bagan residents cannot
establish guesthouses, inns and small hotels which could
benefit locals; but well-connected outsiders are above the law
◦ Particular concern about one large new hotel which is still
under construction in the archaeological zone, without
archaeological supervision
◦ Communities worried about risk of further relocation as a
consequence of World Heritage Listing (following 1990
experience)

19.  Absence of Strategic Environmental Assessment or EIA
 Lack of transparency and public participation in decision
making
 Inappropriate involvement of public officials in
negotiating compensation and sale
 Loss of livelihood/land without replacement jobs
 Inconsistent rates of compensation; those who
bargained harder got more
 Intimidation: farmers feared expropriation if they did
not ‘agree’
 Subsequent land price rise and speculation has
increased local resentment
 Zone concept not connected to tourism market –
different from Bagan.

20. Thank you